RAF BoB Fighters OTL ATL v Me-109

[nuuumannn]

Whilst what you are saying make sense, Parsifal, it simply doesn't add up. You cannot compare the two environments because of the concentration of German fighters in one area of sky. Like the example I gave earlier, 141 Sqn (I put 151 in a previous post, it was actually the former) lost 6 Defiants in a matter of minutes to thirty (that's 30) Bf 109s. The Fulmar could not have expected to have fared any better.

You give me actual examples where up to 30 Bf 109s engaged the FAA's Fulmars over Malta all at once and provide evidence that the Fulmars did well and we'll call it even. In fact, you can provide examples of Fulmars tangling with Bf 109s over Malta and I'll be happy - that's dates, numbers of Fulmars and '109s etc, but that doesn't change the fact that the concentration of German fighters over England was greater - you said so yourself in the figures you offered. Yes, there are examples of Fulmars battling with '109s - they even tangled with Mitsubishi Zeroes over Ceylon as I provided in my earlier post; during the FAA attack on Kirkenes, Fulmars tangled with Bf 109s, but combat between the two was few and far between, so your claims of Fulmars faring well against Bf 109s can't really be substantiated and since they never encountered them on anywhere near the scale as the RAF over England means that you can't really make an even comparison.

RCAFson, comparing the Defiant against a Bf 109 is not an even fight, we know that, but if you read my earlier posts, the Defiant wasn't designed to take on fighters - it was a bomber destroyer, so wasn't really designed to mix it with single-seaters - sigh - how often do I have to repeat myself before people actually read what's being written? Let's look at this hypothetical scenario. A Fulmar sees a Bf 109 below it and in front of it. The Bf 109 applies power and speeds away before the Fulmar gets a chance to fire on it; its speed of 350+ mph would leave the Fulmar with its speed of 260+ in its wake, particularly since the Bf 109's rate of accelleration was greater. Again, take a look back at one of my earlier posts about a quote by an FAA Fulmar pilot who spotted a '109 that joined his formation.

 

[Aozora]

Its not my theory, its theories that Ive learnt, taught and applied for a living stretching over a period of years. Not being condescending, have a great deal of respect for your knowledge actually, but on the the application of air power, the achievement of air state, why having the most modern fighter wont necessarily win a campaign, you dont understand the theory.

Actually you're quite wrong, but I can't be bothered arguing about such things. Fer instance, I can cite example of "second-string" fighters proving extremely useful eg; the Finns using Buffaloes or the Russians using I-15s, 152s and 153s or I-16s. During the B of B Fulmars could have proved useful during, for example, the August 15 raid by Luftflotte 5 where they would not have encountered 109s; on August 18 Blenheims of 235 Coastal Command squadron managed to attack Ju 87s of Stg 77 while they were attacking Thorney Island - the escorting 109s were tangled up with Hurricanes and Spitfires and the Blenheims were left free to attack the Ju 87s.

So Fulmars could have been used to good effect, but I still wouldn't give much for their chances if they were caught in sustained combat against 109s

 

[Juha]

...The supercharger gear ratios could have been adjusted to boost power at high altitude, but in any event a Gladiator with a Mercury XV and CS prop would have been a handful for any axis fighter...

I doubt that, have you some real numbers? Definitely better I-153 (faster, clearly better climber, better acceleration, lighter controls but a slightly worse turner) wasn't a match to 109E or 110C/E using right tactics.

 

[stona]

12 Group's big wing tactics were a hindrance but a short range fighter will have more problems with interceptions as there is much less ability to recover from controller mistakes caused by initial errors in forecasting enemy movements.

Why is that any different for a long range fighter? By the time the Fulmars had set course from their inland bases the Luftwaffe raid would be turning and heading for home. If Spitfires and Hurricanes couldn't catch it then a Fulmar had a snowball's chance in hell of doing so. A faster aeroplane can compensate for errors in vectoring better than a slower one.

It is difficult to know how many interceptions (by 11 Group) failed but evidence from pilots' log books (too small a sample to draw definite conclusions) would imply about one in three failed. H.R 'Dizzy' Allen, a man who expressed views with which I strongly disagree about the handling of the battle, but whose views deserve respect, went further.

"on only 50% of occasions did my squadron achieve an interception after the order was given."

Allen also gives a distance of only two miles at the maximum at which the average pilot could visually locate the enemy. It was, according to him, a particular problem when operating at high altitude because the pilots lacked a frame of reference. Altitude of raids given was often quite inaccurate, best estimates came from the Observer Corps in clear conditions.

Cheers

Steve

 

[parsifal]

Whilst what you are saying make sense, Parsifal, it simply doesn't add up. You cannot compare the two environments because of the concentration of German fighters in one area of sky. Like the example I gave earlier, 141 Sqn (I put 151 in a previous post, it was actually the former) lost 6 Defiants in a matter of minutes to thirty (that's 30) Bf 109s. The Fulmar could not have expected to have fared any better.

Defiants were always going to be a failure, not so much because of their mediocre performance as their dumb tactical concept. they were never going to work. Fulmars on the other hand had lower performance, as you rightly point out, and in a one on one, against first line fighters like the 109, were not going to do well. As a supplement to the Hurricane and Spitfire, they showed (with the hurricane) that they were a very good supplemnent to them, in environments "hot" with enemy fighters. Malta is the best example of that, but there were other instances of that sort of co-operation.

What were th relative strengths of the Fulmar. Certainly not their speed, or their climb. Manouverability was adequate, no more. protection, okay, but nothing special. But it still had some strengths that could prove useful i think. It had the same gun arm,ament as a hurricane, but carried more than twice the ammunition supply. It had about 50% greater endurance, and a higher cruise speed over distance compared to a Hurricane (Not sure about the spit). Designed as two seat scout aircraft with a secoondary role as a fighter, this actually proved quite an advantage. The observer maintained communication with the carrier and other squadron members far better than a single pilot could, and allowed mutual defence to be better, and for attacks to be set up more carefully, whilst the pilot could concentrate on his main task of flying andf fighting. It wasnt enough to compensate for the weight penalty of a second crewman, but it was a help. A second pair of eyes was also found to be a big help for the pilot. Because the division of labour in a Defiant was cockeyed, in that th4 second crewman was the main werapons man whilst the pilot was the manouvre expert, I seriously doubt that similar advantages could be attributed to a Defiant crew. but that is admittedly debateable.

You give me actual examples where up to 30 Bf 109s engaged the FAA's Fulmars over Malta all at once and provide evidence that the Fulmars did well and we'll call it even. In fact, you can provide examples of Fulmars tangling with Bf 109s over Malta and I'll be happy - that's dates, numbers of Fulmars and '109s etc, but that doesn't change the fact that the concentration of German fighters over England was greater - you said so yourself in the figures you offered. Yes, there are examples of Fulmars battling with '109s - they even tangled with Mitsubishi Zeroes over Ceylon as I provided in my earlier post; during the FAA attack on Kirkenes, Fulmars tangled with Bf 109s, but combat between the two was few and far between, so your claims of Fulmars faring well against Bf 109s can't really be substantiated and since they never encountered them on anywhere near the scale as the RAF over England means that you can't really make an even comparison.

Nearly every day from mid February to mid April 1941. The basis of what you are looking for, has virtually nothing to do with the suggestion im arguing. I can only say it again. im not arguing that in a 1 on 1 fight with a 109 was advisable, but acting in a supplementary role, in an environment dominated by enemy se fighters, it could operate and survive, and do some good work. What it could not do was wing air superiorty single handedly. I dont know how many times I need to say that before the message has a chance to sink in.

These are the things I am not saying

direct combat between a 109 and a Fulmar was advisable
fulmars against 109s could win air superiority through superior performance.
fulmars could operate on their own.

This is what I am saying

Fulmars have the runs on the board as to survivability
Fulmars were in combat against the 109, but that does not mean they went head to head with them
Fulmars had certain strengths that might be useful if operating in a supplementary role to the Spits and hurricanes
Superior performance of your fighter forces makes you a contender for winning air superiority, but not necessarily on a sustained basis. numbers count for far more than quality in that respect.

(my emphasis in the following )......"In spite of being employed in a manner quite contrary to the original procurement spec, the Fulmar proved to be extremely effective. In RN service they were credited with over 120 confirmed kills in European waters, several more in the Indian Ocean, for less than 20 lost in air to air combat(*a). This impressive record was achieved in the face of horrendous odds and often alongside single engined types attaining far less lustrous results. The intuitive response to this success is to presume that it was an accomplished bomber killer, but still wouldn't stand a chance against enemy fighters. The numbers available don't seem to bear that assumption out. Only three Fulmars were lost to enemy fighters in European skies, the remainder of their losses were taken to defensive fires from the bewildering variety of enemy bombers they engaged. The opposite side of the ledger is surprising. Five enemy fighters were confirmed by the end of '41, including a Me 109. Although the numbers aren't statistically viable, it seems the Fulmar was at least the equal of the fighters it faced!

So what gives? How on earth can a machine that experts like Capt Brown note was barely capable of catching enemy bombers knock them down by the score, while managing to defend themselves against the enemies fighters?

I think the answer lies in the way it played to its strengths. The considerable endurance built into the frame made useful CAP missions achievable. Prior to the Fulmar entering service, 'planes were launched to intercept inbound raids. This was a deeply unsatisfactory state of affairs, but the happy combination of improved radio telephones, better co-ordination between fleet units and effective radar allowed for the art of fighter control to mature. The observer facilitated excellent command and control, separating the pilot from his flying duties and the need to maintain a rapport with his shipboard controller. The observer took on navigation duties, operated the crafts avionics, could provide local control to several accompanying aircraft and offered another pair of eyes. The combination of a well worked up crews' efforts will always exceed the value of their individual contribution. This is what made the Skua so deadly, in spite of its' lacklustre performance. The Fulmar added a significant performance boost, much greater agility and the devastating punch of eight Brownings, with an unusually large ammunition supply. As the War progressed the number and quality of enemy aircraft faced by the Fairey increased, but advances in radar, radio telecoms and improved fighter control compensated enough to keep pace".

 

[Shortround6]

In trying to estimate the performance of prototype aircraft in the BoB it might do well to revue the History of the Hurricane and Spitfire.

Hurricane monoplane F.36/34 Merlin "C" engine, ballasted to represent service equipment (guns/etc) and 107 gallons fuel (?) 5672lbs.
Hurricane MK I No L1547 with Merlin III and wooden prop and 77.5 gallons fuel 6040lbs.
Hurricane MK I No L1547 with Merlin III and 2 pitch metal prop and 77.5 gallons fuel 6363lbs (includes 58lbs ballast/counterweight)
Hurricane MK I No L2026 with Merlin III with ROTOL constant speed prop and 78.5 gallons fuel 6316lbs
Hurricane MK I No L2026 with Merlin III with ROTOL constant speed prop and 78.5 gallons fuel 6750lbs in overload condition tested May/June of 1940. Overload does NOT include bombs or drop tanks.

weights from RAF data sheet. Tare weight (not guns, radios, etc) 5234lb. Light weight (No fuel, ammo, pilot, etc) 5820lbs, mean weight 6550lbs max weight 6793lbs (97 gallons?)

The Hurricane I gained around 1000lbs (give or take) from prototype to Service use in the BoB. granted it gained new props and metal skinned wings but it also gained armor, bullet proof windscreen, selfsealing tanks and more radio equipment.

The Spitfire prototype went 5332lbs.
An early MK I with wooden prop went 5819lbs.
A Spitfire MK II went 6172lbs.

Granted the MK II picked up an extra 24lbs worth of ammo.

Some of the Prototypes would not gain as much weight as the Hurricane but ANY service aircraft in the summer of 1940 would have gained 4-500lbs minimum from prototype condition (assuming they started with 2 pitch/controllable pitch prop). This may be only a 3-10mph loss in speed (depends on drag of additions, IFF aerials,etc) but the loss of climb and ceiling would be much more important. It may affect turning ability a bit and will certainly affect sustained turning ability.

I would note that the P-40 gained 400lbs from the "plain" P-40 to the P-40C not including the change in guns/ammo. Just armor and self sealing tanks.

 

[parsifal]

These are some notes i made of the early fighting January to early March taken from the book "Air War Malta" by authors Canwell and Sutherland. ive summarised, so its not a quote as such, but its more a condensing down of the text, not my own words as such...

18 Jan the Germans hit Luqa and Hal with more than 80 aircraft. Germans were clearly after the fighters, which they missed, both on the ground and in the air. CAP consisted of 9 Hurricanes and 2 Fulmars, which claimed 17 shoot downs, Axis admitted to the loss of 10 german and 4 Italian aircraft. Axis escort consisted of 10Cr42s, 12 or so MC 200s and about 12 Me 110s. A second raid followed almost identical on the 19th, same targets. Serviceable aircraft by close of business on the 19th was 6 hurris and 1 Fulmar. That morning the Fulmar was used to intercept and destroy a Z506 operating some distance from Malta.

In the first three weeks of January there had been 950 sorties flown against malta

109 operations really began from 8 February. At first a single squadron was used, but was followed by a second squadron a few weks later. German commander had requested 109s to achieve air superiority over the island. This was largely achieved by late Febrauary, though RAF formations continued to fly, avoiding combat with the much superior 109s wherever possible.

At the beginning of March either 2 or 3 Fulmars were detailed to fly night intruder missions over sicily, using their loiter capabilities to catch early morning or late evening bombers takling off or landing. Not sure of how many victories, if any.

Throughout February there were over 100 109 sortes flown directly over Malta. During February, raids concentrated almost exclusively on fighter airfields and the docks. The Germans were attempting to eliminate the fighters from the equation, but failed to completely eliminate them, despite the pounding these airfields took. Maltas defences, including fighters were weak, but remained viable and operational. Malta defenders were not challenging for air superiority directly


There were four big raids in the middle of the month and the composition and strength of the defenders remained remarkably static. 5 replacement hurris arived early Feb by mid Feb reported available fighters were...9 Hurris and 2 Fulmars (my comment...despite their most strenuous efforts, the air garrison was still in the ring, because they were not challenging the air superiority established by the 109s directly). By the time of these mid month raids, a second squadron of 109s had deployed, and the 110s were being reinforced as well. Typical raid was on the 17 feb, which saw an escort of German fighters engage the 11 defenders....or rather attempt to engage. Defenders refused to engage the fighters head on, and still managed to claim 2Ju88s, 2 Ju87, 1 Do217 and 2 Me 110s. AA broughht down a further 5 aircraft. 1 hurri was lost to defensive fire from a Ju87. no losses from the fighters, but by the end of these raids 5 further Hurricanes were grounded, as probable write offs. 5 replacements did not arrive until 6 March.

 

[stona]

Throughout February there were over 100 109 sorites flown directly over Malta.

This needs to be put into perspective. At the height of the Battle of Britain more than that number of sorties a day were flown by Bf 109s over Southern England. A very much more hostile environment for the Fulmar.

There was never more than a few Bf 109s operating against Malta, in fact at the end of January 1941 there was a total (all types) of 141 Luftwaffe aircraft based in Sicily. This figure peaked at 243 in May. There really is no comparison with the Battle of Britain.

Between 11/10/40 and 10/2/41, largely before the Bf 109s arrived (7./JG 26 arrived at Gela on 9/2/41) A.H.Q. Malta claimed to have destroyed 2 x S.79s, 6 x CR 42s, 13 Ju 87s, 6 x MC200s, 12 x Ju 88s, 2 x Z.506Bs. This is a total of 41 aircraft in roughly a month, including two floatplanes (Z.506) six biplanes (CR 42) and a couple of torpedo bombers, even if a pretty good one (S.79). There is a distinct lack of high performance single engine fighters with the exception of the 6 (that's SIX) MC200 with which the Hurricane could more than compete.
Again any comparison with the sort of environment to which the Fulmar would be exposed in the BoB is spurious.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Glider]

I was looking up the details of the fighting over Malta on the 18th Jan and the German losses were all Ju87's and were split between the fighters 7 and the guns 3.

However that wasn't the point of the posting and I recognise that this is a diversion. On the 19th Jan the first Spitfire arrived on Malta. It was a PR aircraft that had taken off from the UK, photographed Turin and due to unexpected winds didn't have the fuel to return to the UK so diverted to Malta. What a flight!! No one on the Island expected it and they couldn't believe their luck.

 

[parsifal]

This needs to be put into perspective. At the height of the Battle of Britain more than that number of sorties a day were flown by Bf 109s over Southern England. A very much more hostile environment for the Fulmar.

There was never more than a few Bf 109s operating against Malta, in fact at the end of January 1941 there was a total (all types) of 141 Luftwaffe aircraft based in Sicily. This figure peaked at 243 in May. There really is no comparison with the Battle of Britain.

Between 11/10/40 and 10/2/41, largely before the Bf 109s arrived (7./JG 26 arrived at Gela on 9/2/41) A.H.Q. Malta claimed to have destroyed 2 x S.79s, 6 x CR 42s, 13 Ju 87s, 6 x MC200s, 12 x Ju 88s, 2 x Z.506Bs. This is a total of 41 aircraft in roughly a month, including two floatplanes (Z.506) six biplanes (CR 42) and a couple of torpedo bombers, even if a pretty good one (S.79). There is a distinct lack of high performance single engine fighters with the exception of the 6 (that's SIX) MC200 with which the Hurricane could more than compete.
Again any comparison with the sort of environment to which the Fulmar would be exposed in the BoB is spurious.

Cheers

Steve

the key being "over southern England. South eastern England is a BIG area, Maltas airfields a point target. There is no comparison in the concentration of effort, you are rigtht, but its 100% the reverse of what you are claiming. Sure numbers overall are not comparable, but against a specific target, the pendulum swings all the way back to malta being the more dangerous place. By far.

Do you have a representative sortie rate by the luftwaffe against a single airfield or port, and the numbers of defenders that typpically were sent to oppose them. then we can put the issue into real persective. the difference between malta and SE england is threefold. Firstly numbers as you say. the defence of Malta was entrusted in January to less than 20 fighters, against which there were over 200 axis aircraft. thats odds of about 10:1. Where in england was FC ever asked to fights with odds that long.

Secondly, where in England did the defence concede air superiority to the Germans. and this makes a huge difference to any analysis of likley Fulmar operations in England. Put the Fulmar into a situation where it is vying against the 109 for air superiority, and it will lose, unquestionably. Use it in the manner it was used over malta....avoid contact with the fighter, use the strengths of the aircraft to your advantage, and you have an effective attritional weapon that could well augment the efforts of the Hurricane and Spitfires. put the Fulmar in the wrong place and wrong battle, and it will lose, but as Malta clearly shows, it was possible to avoid being snookered like that more or less routinely.

Air Superiority was conceded over malta from the first week of february . It seems just like a phrase to us, but it means something. minimse combat with the enemy fighters,, specifically the 109s, even though they are there in numbers. As far as High performance fighters, the Germans had, at that stage about 32 Me 110s available in FKX, and the unkown numbers of CR42s and MC200s and G-50s (but a good estimate would be aroun 100+). All of these aircraft were on a par with the Fulmar...in the case of the saettas and Me110s, I would say they were superior.

Thirdly because Malta was a point target, it was the subject of ALL the axis air activity, and that makes it a far more dangerous place than any SINGLE target or strike in SE England. If two fulmers are expected to take on three full German air fleets at the same time, your argument makes sense. If they are operating over a specific target at one point in time, they will only ever be asked to do battle with a fraction of those numbers. If you put 10 fulmars into the battle , statistically speaking based on the numbers of aircraft each side had available, they would most likely have 30 luftwaffe aircraft to fight, of which about 8 would be Me 109s. If there were say 6 Hurricanes working with them, and 4 Fulmars, to what extent can the 6 hurricanes hold off or keep busy the 109s, and to what extent can the 109s afford to loiter on deep penetration raids or thin themselves out to protect stragglers and lost aircraft. The Fulmar can simply out wait the 109 if they need to....


What is the basis of your last claim. Malta was the most attacked, most heavily bombed target on earth to that point of history. The Axis went after the fighter defences specifically. They had plenty of material to do it, and had a real go of it. In the finish they brought up their heavy ace....the 109 formations. Against that, with odds of around 10 to 20:1 (overall numbers of aircraft. for fighters, they had about 30-40 Me109s at its peak, about 30 or so Me 110s and about 100 Italian fighters, against roughly 11 defending fighters, or odds of about 16:1, or against the 109s alone, about 3:1). against odds of that order, Fulmar losses were 3 aircraft shot down by fighters for the entire year, and 17 other (for the whole ETO, not just Malta) again for the entire year. Yet people feel it safe to claim SE england was a far more dangerous environment and the Fulmar had no hope to survive. I just dont see the evidence to support that ..

And once again, I am not saying the Fulmar can successfully engage directly a 109. Thats not the basis of sound strategy against an opponent that holds air superiority. You look for chinks, and in the summer of 1940, the LW had plenty

 

[parsifal]

I was looking up the details of the fighting over Malta on the 18th Jan and the German losses were all Ju87's and were split between the fighters 7 and the guns 3.

However that wasn't the point of the posting and I recognise that this is a diversion. On the 19th Jan the first Spitfire arrived on Malta. It was a PR aircraft that had taken off from the UK, photographed Turin and due to unexpected winds didn't have the fuel to return to the UK so diverted to Malta. What a flight!! No one on the Island expected it and they couldn't believe their luck.

Now that I did not know. Great information

 

[Greyman]

You got me curious ...

18 January 1941
50+ x Ju87s, ? x Ju88s, ? x MC200 attack Hal Far and Luqa
5 x Hurricanes and 4 x Fulmars scrambled
7 x Ju87s claimed shot down (only one actually lost, additionally 1 x Ju88 and 1 x MC200 lost)
2 x Fulmars lost (one to a Ju87, one probably to an MC200)

Lieutenant(A) Robert Henley (who was shot down by the Ju87) specifically stated in this action; 'The poor old Fulmar had problems gaining height and in gaining speed against the Ju88s.'

EDIT: from the aforementioned 'Hurricanes Over Malta'

 

[stona]

Lieutenant(A) Robert Henley (who was shot down by the Ju87) specifically stated in this action; 'The poor old Fulmar had problems gaining height and in gaining speed against the Ju88s.'

This is the same Lt. Henley who reported the incident (mentioned above by someone else) in which an aircraft which he identified as a Bf 109 attempted to join his formation. It broke away, presumably realising its mistake, and simply flew away from the Fulmars who failed to get a shot at it. Later, during the same sortie (10th Jan 1941), Henley claimed an S.79 destroyed (jointly with Sub Lt. Sewell) and two others damaged before landing at Hal Far after an eventful 3 hour 40 minute flight 'with virtually no gas'.

On the same day two S.79s attacked H.M.S. Illustrious and the Fulmars flying what we now call CAP, flown by Sub Lts. Orr and Hogg, were ordered to give chase. It took the Fulmars fifty miles to catch and attack the S.79s. One was claimed destroyed but in fact both got back to Trapani where Ten. Angelo Caponetti crashed his damaged aircraft attempting to land.

Cheers

Steve

 

[stona]

On the 19th Jan the first Spitfire arrived on Malta. It was a PR aircraft that had taken off from the UK,

This was a Spitfire PR Mk ID, P9551, flown by Flt.Lt. P. Corbishley, DFC. It was recorded at the time as the 'only one of its type and range in existence' which wasn't quite true. The given range was 1,750 miles. Permission was obtained from the Air Ministry for the aircraft to be retained on Malta until wind conditions were suitable for its return to England. AHQ Malta decided to make good use of this wind fall (literally) and Corbishley made his first sortie over Sicily on 21st January. Corbishley and his Spitfire were shot down by flak on a mission to Genoa on 2nd February 1941.

Cheers

Steve

 

[RCAFson]

In trying to estimate the performance of prototype aircraft in the BoB it might do well to revue the History of the Hurricane and Spitfire.

Hurricane monoplane F.36/34 Merlin "C" engine, ballasted to represent service equipment (guns/etc) and 107 gallons fuel (?) 5672lbs.
Hurricane MK I No L1547 with Merlin III and wooden prop and 77.5 gallons fuel 6040lbs.
Hurricane MK I No L1547 with Merlin III and 2 pitch metal prop and 77.5 gallons fuel 6363lbs (includes 58lbs ballast/counterweight)
Hurricane MK I No L2026 with Merlin III with ROTOL constant speed prop and 78.5 gallons fuel 6316lbs
Hurricane MK I No L2026 with Merlin III with ROTOL constant speed prop and 78.5 gallons fuel 6750lbs in overload condition tested May/June of 1940. Overload does NOT include bombs or drop tanks.

weights from RAF data sheet. Tare weight (not guns, radios, etc) 5234lb. Light weight (No fuel, ammo, pilot, etc) 5820lbs, mean weight 6550lbs max weight 6793lbs (97 gallons?)

The Hurricane I gained around 1000lbs (give or take) from prototype to Service use in the BoB. granted it gained new props and metal skinned wings but it also gained armor, bullet proof windscreen, selfsealing tanks and more radio equipment.

The Spitfire prototype went 5332lbs.
An early MK I with wooden prop went 5819lbs.
A Spitfire MK II went 6172lbs.

Granted the MK II picked up an extra 24lbs worth of ammo.

Some of the Prototypes would not gain as much weight as the Hurricane but ANY service aircraft in the summer of 1940 would have gained 4-500lbs minimum from prototype condition (assuming they started with 2 pitch/controllable pitch prop). This may be only a 3-10mph loss in speed (depends on drag of additions, IFF aerials,etc) but the loss of climb and ceiling would be much more important. It may affect turning ability a bit and will certainly affect sustained turning ability.

I would note that the P-40 gained 400lbs from the "plain" P-40 to the P-40C not including the change in guns/ammo. Just armor and self sealing tanks.

The normal loaded weight of the Fulmar I was 9672 lbs (Wings of the Navy).
- folding wings, arrestor gear, catapult points, naval radios and homing gear = ~500lb
- 2nd crew plus seat, related equipment and life support = ~500lbs
= ~8700lb = loaded, fueled and armed NN Fulmar (NN = non naval). For comparison, a fully loaded F4F-4 = 7995lb while the Martlet II and IV weighed ~7750lb.

With a Merlin II the NN Fulmar should perform close to the P.4/34, but should be ~10mph faster with a Merlin XII at altitude. Overall performance would be similar but superior overall to the Martlet IV (for example), because of the NN Fulmars low wing loading, which is about the same as a Hurricane 1. Overall climb rate will be similar to a Hurricane as well, while ceiling with a Merlin XII would be ~30,000ft.

Would the RAF have benefited from a heavy fighter with a range of ~1000 miles? I think the answer is yes, even during the BofB.

 

[RCAFson]

To quote myself from an earlier thread:

The Fulmar's finest hour?
On May 08 1941 Fulmars from Ark Royal and Formidable engaged both the Luftwaffe and Reggia Aeronautica and soundly thrashed them both:

RA losses:

4 x SM79
2 x CR42

Luftwaffe losses:
1 x Ju-88
4 x He-111
2 x Me-110 (crash landed due to battle damage)
1 x Me110 damaged
1 x Ju-87 (confirmed by Fulmar gun camera but not noted in Luftwaffe records)
1 x Ju87 damaged

FAA:

2 x Fulmar (one from bomber defensive fire)
2 X Fulmar crash landed on CVs
1X Fulmar crashed due to weather (not combat related)
6 x Fulmars damaged

Data from Shores, Mediterranean Air War, 1940-1945: Volume One: North Africa, June 1940-January 1942, p182-185

 

[Greyman]

Great books. Can't wait for volume two.

 

[stona]

To quote myself from an earlier thread:

The Fulmar's finest hour?
On May 08 1941 Fulmars from Ark Royal and Formidable engaged both the Luftwaffe and Reggia Aeronautica and soundly thrashed them both:

And not a Bf 109 to be found

This is all very well but hardly supports the contention that the Fulmar would have been useful, or even capable of surviving, in the cauldron of the Battle of Britain.

Cheers

Steve

 

[merlin]

Quite frankly I'm amazed, in any ATL of BoB, I would not have considered the Fulmar - at the outside just as a possible emergency night-fighter, but then it would probably take too long to climb to have any chance of achieving an interception.

Whilst, an ATL BoB helps to do away with the Defiant Blenheim, when every I do an alternative FAA - the Fulmar doesn't get a look in!

 

[stona]

Great books. Can't wait for volume two.

Indeed, mine's already been ordered though not expected until May.

Cheers

Steve